moment's call. >> does the dollar amount requested for this committee's approval meet those requirements? >> yes, sir, i think it does. in pb 13 for the title 10 fight. i'm a little bit concerned when i take a look at some of the domestic requirements for the air national guard. there is, you know, some pressure. so obviously as the air force tries to do its part in reducing the deficit, i think the key is that as we go forward and we look at the number of required mpa days that would allow the air guard and the reserve to continue functioning, that we take a no kidding look at what are the requirements, what interest demands that the cocomms are telling us would be forward and what would be adequately budgeted for that rather than pick an arbitrary number and try to cut. >> general ingram, camp shelby,

mississippi at hattiesburg has been a site for army guardsmen reservists, others to mobilize and be deployed to areas of need. what is your impression of the funding requests for that facility if there is money in there for any activities and programs there? and what needs exist that should be brought to our attention if they're not requested? >> senator cochran, camp shelby has been a very viable force projection platform for most of the war fight. there has been some improvements that have been made there. the army funds those improvements out of the base budget. and as we continue down the road, i think the appropriate needs will be met by the army

budget for camp shelby and several other predominantly army national guard camps and stations that are used as power projection platforms. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator alexander? >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i want to ask about the announcement in february about replacing the c-5as with c-17s, which was part of the comprehensive reorganization of air force resources. the house defense authorization bill includes a provision that would put that restructuring plan on hold for a year. so i understand. and i want to try to understand from you, general wyatt, if i can, what the consequences of that are.

specifically, the idea as you went through these difficult budget decisions was to replace the c 5as which are expensive to maintain and which aren't mission ready much of the time with c-17s. the idea would be that would save a lot of money and produce a more efficient operation. now what does -- what happens to the -- this one-year delay do? what does it do in terms of the cost of maintenance, for example? in terms of the c-580s that you know you're going to get rid of? what does it do for the schedule of retraining personnel? what does it do to the guard is' mission rates? >> sir, those are great questions that we're wreg ling

with right now. the transition at memphis out of the c-5s and c-17s was an fy 12 action that is supposed to have began, but it continues into fy-13. it requires training, dollars to be spend to make the conversion. the reason -- and i applaud that move because it brings the air national guard more into the relevant aircraft of the future. it's something we've been pushing for for a long time. >> we're going to get rid of them, right? >> yes, sir, we are. >> why delay it a year? >> i hope we don't. that particular movement is one of the things that i think is in the best interest of the country, and certainly the air

force and air national guard that we continue with that part of it. if the prohibition is to spend fy-13 funds on fy-12 actions that need to be completed in fy-13, then the dilemma is as expressed. it would mean what is the cost of maintaining them? is there appropriations in the 13 cr to do so, if that's where we're going? and it does cause us some uncertainty as we go forward. >> so when the dollars are short or tight, and many of your recommendations weren't able to be accepted, but you're saluting them, maybe we need a title ten salute in the united states senate. we might get things done a little more quickly than we did. so you're going to have to spend money maintaining planes that you know you're going to get rid of. when you could be spending it on retraining guard personnel. you could be spending it on

other aspects of mission readiness. is that not correct? >> yes, sir. the situation at memphis is exactly as you have described it. that's one of the inputs in the air force corporate process that the air national guard made that was accepted by the united states air force? and i applauded that because it made a lot of sense. still does make a lot of sense. but the dilemma that we're in now is how do you make that transition that we start this year in ny-12 with the prohibitions on spending moneys in '13 to complete the actions. >> i hope as we move through the process and we're trying to respect you're stewardship of scarce dollars that we see what that delay would do is really waste money, or take money for planes that we know we're going to get rid of to maintain them. and money that request be used in other places. in the same light, in national the guard is preparing for a new unmanned aerial vehicle mission,

which i understand the air force needs for that facility to assume. now how will this one-year delay affect the capabilities in the time line from moving them into nashville? >> very similar situation. again, this was an fy-12 action that is beginning. part of it involves the movement of c130s from puerto rico to the air national guard, which is losing c10e. so there's a ripple effect that we're facing. i have to applaud the general, general for tennessee. very forward looking volunteered early onto transition into the rpa mission, which we see as a sunrise mission in the air national guard. one that will be around and keep the tennessee air guard relevant well into the future. but we face the same challenges

there. we need to continue down the path of transition. delays do make the transition a little bit smoother. a little bit more difficult. and costly. >> and costly. >> and costly. you know. the cost of maintaining those air would move to puerto rico. if we're required on the e models, then we could have the expense that we would not normally have. >> i don't have much time left. if i could ask the general. towards the end of president bush's administration, national guardsmen were deployed to assist with immigration issues. you made a slight reference to that. i wonder if you can tell me how successful that was. whether that is still going on in terms of the border control activities. i think it was in support of

the -- those whose job it is to secure the border. >> senator, you are correct. it's in spor of the customs and border patrol. that mission has changed slightly. this year that mission changed from 1200 people to 300 people. and it moved from a grand mission to an aerial mission where we're using 300 soldiers flying 19 helicopters and one fixed wing aircraft along with analysts on the ground that help interpret the data for the border patrol from the information it's gained from the aircraft. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator kotz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just want to follow up on senator alexander's question. relative to the a-10. really a similar situation here where a decision has been made

to retire a certain model of aircraft, and replace it with others. i know there have been negotiations going on. between the guard and the air force. and then referencing the action that the house recently took to delay all this for a year. if you could apply that now back down to the a-10 situation. what is the -- what is the status of those negotiations? is this a done deal? is it a financial decision has been made? is there more consideration to be undertaken? >> very similar situation to tennessee. significantly different input from the air national guard. our input in the corporate process was to suggest alternative ways to meet the

emer emerging strategy with a 10s. as you know play a crucial role in close air support, iraq an afghanistan. we have air guard a 10s in theater right now as we speak. but some of those suggestions were not accepted by the air force as we went forward. alternative missions were proposed for the unit at ft. wayne, indiana, and those are included in pb-13. the status of the negotiations between the council of governors and secretary panetta i think have concluded. although at any point in time the secretary has the prerogative with the counselor of governors at dialogue to reengage.

my understanding is the counsel of governors have respectfully declined the offer of secretary panetta to reach a compromise. so we're waiting to see what happens. with pb-13. but in the meantime, as i indicated, we need to start moving towards at least taking a look at implementing it as it has been proposed. unless we're told something different by congress. >> again to follow on senator alexander's question. but the house pass becomes law, what do you anticipate the status of current a-10 fleets being? are they going to be hanger queens and just sit there in the cost of maintenance? but no mission for them? just waiting out the year. what is your take? >> if that happens we hope there would be sufficient funds to

continue operating. they're already trained. they've rendered great support to the operation in iraq and afghanistan. and our intention would be to continue with the training and keeping that operational for as long as possible. we may have to dial back or dial down the level of continuation training, which would be difficult to do and maintain our we will give it the best shot. >> again. it's something that will have to be decided by the secretary and the chief of the air force. so i guess there's a possibility that they wouldn't be operational during the one year holding period. that would be my concern. >> that is a possibility.

>> and then what effect would that have on the the planned sir? >> it would be delayed obviously. the part i'm concerned about is the people. the thing that i'm hearing is concern about an indefinite future. what is the future of my job? is it the same? is it different? will it be here at all? i mentioned the volunteerism. the recruiting continues to be strong, even in spite of pb-13 and the operations tempo. but where i'm starting to see some stress on my folks is our retention numbers. our retention numbers are beginning to drop. i contribute that to the air force's 13pb.

it's had a more detrimental affect on our numbers than 20 years of high operational combat has had. so the uncertainty is beginning to take a toll on our people wondering about their futures and do we have time to invest in a unit that may not be here next year or changing to a mission that we don't know what that will be? >> thank you. the humvee was mentioned in your opening statement. 60% 20 years old or more. what's the -- what is the take on what you need? i think you mentioned modernization. some have mentioned upgrading existing fleet. others say the cost -- it's more cost effective to go to the more modernized vehicle. what is the story on this? >> first of all, thanks for the

question, senator. i'm in revote of letters from 17 adjectives, general, in support of purchasing new humvees. i am the channel communication between the states and the department. so we have forwarded the letters of support. general ingraham can talk about the percentages. i would say strategically across both air and army guard, this generation of soldier and airmen have joined our services and joined the guard specifically to be used, to operate first line equipment. to be part of the team that goes forward, either here at home for domestic emergencies or to support our army and our air force. and so recapitalization across the fleet to include ground vehicles has got to be factored in. we have to fight hard with our services to make sure that the balance and the proportions are

right. some people who joined us are just not going to be as excited about the air national guard. i'll let bill answer your question. >> senator, we have some of the oldest humvees in the inventory for the army. and i guess the question at this moment is do we recapitalize the ones that we have, or do we, as the army buys the jltv, the next generation, we should get a proportional share of those vehicles. so the question is do we keep a number of humve, s unrecapitalized to trade in or to turn in as we gain the jltv. and it's a balance. obviously we can -- we would like to upgrade the fleet. we want to be frugal with our resources and do the right

thing. so at the moment there's a tradeoff there. the longer we wait, the more need for renewed recap. >> just one last question, mr. chairman, if i could. my preference has always been redirect money for recruiting for you. you decide how to best use liz the money. you see the air guard or army guard on the side of the car. you do that in areas where the potential for recruiting is very high. i don't like to micro manage, but is this instilling a value to you in terms of recruiting and what other gains you may get from it? or is this something that time has come and gone?

>> it's really a matter of branding and being associated with a national brand. we do run recruits at sporting events. both motor sports and other sports. people don't necessarily buy tide laundry detergent because of the race car that sports the tide hood. but they do associate that product at a national level. and the army national guard, because of the of the target audience that we're looking at, that's of interest to those people.

it's a national branding opportunity that is of great value. and the fact that the teams that the army national guard sponsor do good things for the nation and held in high esteem by that group of people. it leads to recruits for the army national guard. >> i would hope we couldn't micro manage that project. for the branding and recruiting. i think it says do this and put on that commercial or this car, but not on that car. it ought to be left up to the people who are involved in the process, and not those of us who have a preference. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. now i would like to recognize the chairman of the senate national guard caucus. senator leahy.

>> thank you. yesterday we saw on the news a plane had to be landed on its way to charlotte. were those guard jets? >> yes, senator, they were. >> that sort of leads into a question i have. there's a couple of lesser known cuts. not lesser known but lesser cuts proposed to the air national guard and issues that concern me deeply. specifically cuts to air control alert locations. air national guard explosive ordnance. the air controller. i think it's safe to say from everything we have learned without going into anything we

get, it's safe to say that commercial airlines are still a target of terrorists. is that not a fair statement? >> that's correct, senator. our strategy for dealing with threats to the united states have changed. and that's would drive reductions. but i worry that we're just seeing a budget cut, i don't see the threat going out. i think we should have our air control alert locations. it looks like they just handed you a bill to pay, and then you had to make cuts to meet those targets.

do you think they considered the impact of getting rid of the air force bomb squads? i know governors all over the country use. to help when they need a bomb squad. i've certainly seen it in my own state of vermont. do you think they thought of that? that that impacts the states pretty badly? >> i'm going to address this question first. senator, you're correct. that threat is still there. and i think that according to studies that you referenced that are classified, could the nation assume a little additional risk? that's a discussion i would like to have you with in a classified -- >> but what i worry about is the discussion is driven more by

budgetary issues, and not by reality. >> certainly the budget does come into play. we have to talk about what we can afford to provide. and are there opportunities or places where we could take additional risk, and whether, you know, whether this additional risk is worth the money is a debate -- >> i think you're going to find on the question of bomb squads -- >> yes, sir. the bomb squads, what we did there is we looked at the situation in iraq and afghanistan. reck needsing that we would be coming home from those wars. we tried to look at the capabilities that the united states needed that could be supplied by the air national guard.

i think the issue that has been highlighted with the council of governors is the new process inside highlights that we need to do a better job of communicating with the generals and the governors to get the effect of title ten decisions on the governor's ability to respond to things like explosive ordinance disorder. >> also, i think that the air force. >> especially considering the air force has cut into the guard reserves for more than the army or maybe i -- i worry that they're not listening to some of the concerns. certainly i get that from governors of both parties.

if you see any analysis that's going to save money or provide the air force with more capability. >> no, sir. i'm not seeing that analysis? have you asked? >> yes, sir, i have. >> well, that kind of bothers me. you should have been allowed before the air force presented the budget proposal based on the claims they have and haven't showed you. >> i agree, sir. i guess coming to the conclusion that the analysis that i have been able to see, the answer is

sometimes i guess the conclusion is important. but as important are the initial going in assumptions. and the metrics are what it is that you're trying to answer. not only not seeing the analysis, but how we got to the analysis. >> i agree with you. i don't think the cuts is going to save us money. i think in the long run it's going to cost us a lot more. we saw how important they were to us during iraq and afghanistan. that's not a capability you can turn on and off like a switch.

i their the concern of the governors they weren't listened to. you've always been very available to me and my staff when we have had questions. i thank you for your service. we've been good friends. we visited both in vermont and here. you're going to be first chief to wear four stars. folks with voice on the joint chief of staff. and we take pleasure in that. he made history by transforming the guard to the operational force. and i just ask this.

you're leaving. you can say whatever you want to say. do you think the guard would be in a good position of keeping the pressure on the way we do? >> you don't have to anxious that, general, but i see the grin. go ahead. >> most of us prefer not to build our own gallows. i will preserve only of my comments for the meeting with you before i leave.